More evidence of the irrelevance of Rolling Stone
 

from Roger Friedman's "Fox 411":

Rolling Stone: Changes Record Reviews Too

Greg Kot of the Chicago Tribune complained in an interview this week that even though editors at Rolling Stone leave his copy alone, they often change the number of stars he assigns to an album.

Kot is lucky his reviews aren't changed. I reported about three years ago that one reviewer quit after editor-in-chief and owner Jann Wenner yanked her negative reviews of albums by Paul Simon and Don Henley, replacing them with positive takes. Both Simon and Henley are Wenner's close pals.

Meanwhile, Justin Timberlake is on the cover of Rolling Stone for the second time this year. I'm trying to remember how often David Cassidy, the Justin of my time, made the cover. Rolling Stone, for all intents and purposes, should just merge with Tiger Beat and get it over with.
__________________________________________________

I'm not surprised a bit. This magazine is so bad now, my butt won't even let me use it for toilet paper.

Actually, I seem to remember David Cassidy WAS on the cover of Rolling Stone.

And the Timberlake record is great.

As far as ratings changes go, it sucks, but it's not a huge deal. I've had it done to me by several mags.

I wish Greg Kot would just quit RS. Only thing I can think is that he gets a decent dollar from them. I have always liked and respected him. He definitely does not need the BS that RS has become the last decade (at least).

Regardless of what RS did, Greg Kot is a pointy-headed elitist twit.

http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/...sp?aid=2044674

Check out those reader responses. rotfl

Wait a minute... if RS reviewers were "pointy-headed elitist twits," wouldn't that mean that Britney was never on the cover and all Peter Gabriel albums received 5 stars? I mean, that's what I would expect from such a magazine.

I am constantly amused by readers' willingness to pillory a critic because the critic's opinion on one album dares to contradict the readers'.

Hey, I don't read RS and I have no idea if Greg Kot has any "pointy-headedness," but drawing a conclusion about a reviewer based on a one-paragraph review (which probably had a lot of the analysis and justification edited out) seems harsh.

I don't need any evidence to convince me that Rolling Stone is irrelavant. I never thought they were relavant to begin with.

that pisses me off, as I generally enjoy reading their review section. I don't think Rolling Stone is that relevent anymore, yet i still think its an enjoyable mag. Good pictures, fun/interesting/eye opening articles. and I love peter travers.

Perfect magazine to read while taking a fat shit. I'm happy with it

If that's what you call someone who is very good at what he does and actually calls it as 'he' sees it? Then I would consider that either a compliment or just jealousy on others (especially the fan boys who freaked out that wrote in). I never found him to be elitest and actually very down to earth from the few shows I have seen him do.

I once sat behind Jann Wenner at a movie (Austin Powers 2) in the Hamptons. He and his obnoxious kid talked and threw popcorn the whole time.

Kot's 'review' of that album is so poorly written, so baseless in it's criticism, that I had to seek out his other reviews. They confirmed my earlier suspicion--he is one of the many music critics who is more interested in hipsterism than actual response to music. Rolling Stone's choice of him to review that album is just indicative of the poor editorial condition of the magazine overall; they see fit to award the pop garbage in the Billboard charts with higher reviews than one of an influential artist's best albums.

He's also out of step with not only Peter Gabriel fans, which could at least be dismissed in your 'fanboy' terminology, but most other critics as well:

http://www.metacritic.com/music/arti...brielpeter/up/

Going back to the actual thread topic, Rolling Stone has been a joke for nigh on 10+ years now. Call me Captain Obvious. ;)

So is your point that because Kot's review didn't agree with what other critics said and because Gabriel fans disagreed with him then he must be a bad critic? I have very littel love for Kot -- I never feel like there's much thought behind his pieces (same with his Chitown partner, Mr. DeRo, and nearly every critic ever) -- but to hold him in contempt based on that assumption is just plain wrong.

And why has Rolling Stone been a joke for 10 years now?

I always wondered how many times a reviewer might change his mind many months down the road after reviewing a disc. I remember one time a famous critic for Entertainment Weekly re-reviewed Enya's "Shephard Moons" six months after his first marginal review and upgraded it from a B- to an A (something like that). I thought that took a bit of guts to share that he thought he screwed up.

Even if Rolling Stone has gone down hill a little bit it's still worth receiving for $4.00 a year (which can be found easily online).

Thats like free paper!!

For a music magazine I find it interesting that the only reason I would ever read it is for Peter Travers' often funny movief articles.

your quite right, Travers is the only reason to read that rag. I haven't read it since I graduated college a few months ago.

I bought my first issue in 5 years yesterday for the free SACD. Actually the top 500 issues has some pretty good stuff on how those classic albums were made and a decent article by Robert Kennedy Jr. The rest is Entertainment Weekly rock journalism.

"The rest is Entertainment Weekly rock journalism."

That about sums it up. I agree with Captain Obvious, RS has been insignificant for 10+ years. Nice eye candy though.

this is where i point out that entertainment weekly has the best music coverage of any glossy

Overall thoughts:

• RS is probably highly relevant to certain groups.
• I personally have never picked up a copy of RS unless it's at a friends house. Not because I think it's a rag but out of habit of not doing it.
• I like the Peter Traver's movie reviews
• EW is one magazine that I enjoy reading for music reviews